4 ms·

Exactly. autotools is exceptionally well designed for dealing with more exotic use cases like cross compiling. When designing a cross-compiling linux distributi

Exactly. autotools is exceptionally well designed for dealing with more exotic use cases like cross compiling. When designing a cross-compiling linux distribution(http://exherbo.org/docs/multiarch.txt http://exherbo.org/docs/multiarch.txt) we discovered that autotools is by far the easiest to deal with when it comes to arbitrary host & build targets, compilers, etc. I would be even bolder and say that: Those who do not understand autotools are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.

danieldk 11y ago
Exactly. autotools is exceptionally well designed for dealing with more exotic use cases like cross compiling. ...and it cannot deal with non-exotic use cases like non-UNIX environments (think Windows + Visual Studio) well at all. In contrast, with CMake you can generate an nmake file or Visual Studio project with one command.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  On the other hand, with autotools you can cross-compile for Windows using MinGW.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    Just like someone under unix could always just use mono's xbuild to build a project using visual studio's .vsproj files. Course, people tend to get grumpy when you tell them that they have to jump through hoops to use your project, just like your suggestion...
nitrogen 11y ago
I use CMake to cross-compile firmware for my home automation hardware. It doesn't seem too bad, just a single file shared across all projects that defines the compiler binaries and settings. I like it much better than autotools.
- detaro 11y ago
  Do you have an example online somewhere? This might be useful to have as a reference in the future.
  - bodyfour 11y ago
    http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tanderson92 11y ago
  Note that autotools handles all that (referencing also your link in another child comment) for you with no extra work. Writing a autoconf script for a native architecture means your project should compile for a cross arch. It is for that reason I much prefer autotools, especially at the distribution level where you really don't want to be patching things. CMake can work, but I have had to do more patching for CMake build systems than I have had to for autotools; on that basis I consider autotools "better", at least for our use case.

danieldk 11y ago

Exactly. autotools is exceptionally well designed for dealing with more exotic use cases like cross compiling. ...and it cannot deal with non-exotic use cases like non-UNIX environments (think Windows + Visual Studio) well at all. In contrast, with CMake you can generate an nmake file or Visual Studio project with one command.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
On the other hand, with autotools you can cross-compile for Windows using MinGW.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Just like someone under unix could always just use mono's xbuild to build a project using visual studio's .vsproj files. Course, people tend to get grumpy when you tell them that they have to jump through hoops to use your project, just like your suggestion...

nitrogen 11y ago

I use CMake to cross-compile firmware for my home automation hardware. It doesn't seem too bad, just a single file shared across all projects that defines the compiler binaries and settings. I like it much better than autotools.

detaro 11y ago
Do you have an example online somewhere? This might be useful to have as a reference in the future.
- bodyfour 11y ago
  http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tanderson92 11y ago
Note that autotools handles all that (referencing also your link in another child comment) for you with no extra work. Writing a autoconf script for a native architecture means your project should compile for a cross arch. It is for that reason I much prefer autotools, especially at the distribution level where you really don't want to be patching things. CMake can work, but I have had to do more patching for CMake build systems than I have had to for autotools; on that basis I consider autotools "better", at least for our use case.